I swear to fucking god measuring from a super massive nino in 1998 to a huge nina in 2008 is NO GOOD WAY TO MEASURE GLOBAL TEMPERATURES. What you do more or less is find a neutral year like 1981,1990, 1995, or maybe 2003, but there is a damn good reason why you don't chose a warm or cool enso year.

Then draw the mother fucking line in between the low(cool years) and highs(warmer years). What this does is give you a trend of the normal conditions. That is what is changing my friends. A nina and nino over the course of the past 30 years have also changed. In the 1970s a nina would of given us around -.15 to -.1c within the giss, but today a year will be at least .3c within the deepest nina imaginable.

The attachment is me doing as I said above with choosing the favorable years that i point out and drilling a line through the means. Do you see any fucking cooling even through we're supposed to be cooling? I don't think so---Anyways, I may not be winning, but I'm surely right. O'hell even not winning, I will be laughing my ass off.

No offense intended Matthew, but your posts make you out to be very fickle. Instead of swaying this way or that way depending on what you read in one place or another, take some time to learn the foundational basics of science. Learn the laws of physics and what they mean. Learn to apply them to the real world. Learn what is and what isn't. Then you won't have to be dragged in 14 different directions by as many people with as many different agendas.

You will know what is and isn't possible according to the laws of science and when you hear people making claims you can determine for yourself whether they are talking from a position of fact or fantasy.

The world may be warming. There would be nothing surprising in that as it has been on a general warming trend for 14,000 years now. The world may be cooling. There would be nothing surprising in that as it happens from time to time. The bottom line is that we are causing neither. The pseudo science that says we are doesn't fit within the constraints of the science that says we aren't.

You seem like a smart guy. Learn the foundational science and stop getting dragged around.

When are you going to present a single Scientific Society, one National Academy of Science, or a major University that supports your point of view? You cannot, because there are none.

Click to expand...

Since you don't know the first thing about scientific societies, I suppose your ignorance is forgivable. The political head of a scientific society is an entirely different thing from the scientific body of a scientific society. If you want to hold up scientific societies, try holding up the bodies, which represent working scientists, of the societies who by overwhelming majority, in all societies, don't go along with the hypothesis of agw.

Yes, in geological time, the Earth has warmed and cooled a number of times. Sometimes with enormous consequences for life at that time. And, as in all of nature, there are reasons that it has done so.

Click to expand...

Since the time the present warming trend began rocks, doesn't really represent much in terms of geological time. 14K years is nothing in terms of geological time and since the warming began, there have been numerous periods in which global temperatures were warmer than the present; and colder. If you could point to something that is outside of, or even close to the limits of natural variability, even within the present interglacial, you might have something. But you can't. Nothing in the present represents anything even close to being outside of natural variability.

When you actually want to talk about the science rather than simply repeat your holy scripture, let me know rocks. Till then, it is clear that this topic is, to you, an article of faith.

They might be wrong, experts sometimes are, but their opinions about their field of study are certainly more likely to be correct than my own.

Click to expand...

I have nothing wrong with the scientists, my problem is with the politicians who's only remedy for AGW is massive governmental control of our economy and our personal lives. Add in the fact that in any of these schemes two of the larger polluters, China and India will tell us to pound sand, and I fail to see the reason we should cripple our economy if they do not.

The final nail in the coffin is that the one availible technology that is availible and could provide easy baseline power is also rejected by the most feverent AGW proponents. Yes fission power creates waste and must be heavily regulated, but at least the waste is compact per GW created, and managable.

AGW proponents could see the elimination of most of our coal plants if they would embrace nuclear power, but they do not.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!